Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
104 online now:
Dredge (1 member, 103 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,086 Year: 5,198/6,534 Month: 41/577 Week: 29/80 Day: 16/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 295 (270860)
12-19-2005 4:48 PM


I want to discuss with Faith my and her understanding of evolution. However, we don't want it to be a Great Debate because we want expert input from time to time, if any is available. Her science is execrable and mine is just bad.

We want to concentrate on the proofs of evolution, which I consider very substantial. Obviously, Faith disagrees.

Over a hundred years ago, people did these digs and found a pattern emerging. The further down you dug, the simpler the organism was (in the form of fossils). This didn't just happen most of the time. It was always the case, if the ground was undisturbed.

They figured deeper meant older. Later on they found a way to date stuff, which confirmed that deeper indeed meant older, and these things were, it turned out, very old indeed. They found some strange fossils which looked like a cross between one kind of animal and another. They found a lot of these.

As time passed, they built up a "family tree" of life based on physical characteristics.

Years later, along came DNA analysis. So they started analyzing the DNA of various species, and it turned out that the DNA analysis matched the "family tree" they had built up years before. It did not match all the time precisely, of course, but the match overall was very good.

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-19-2005 04:04 PM

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 04:35 PM


We are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 5:45 PM robinrohan has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 295 (270868)
12-19-2005 5:00 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Placed in Great Debates to indicate that others should restrain themselves unless invited by the primary participants.

This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-19-2005 04:05 PM


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 3 of 295 (270886)
    12-19-2005 5:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 4:48 PM


    ===================================================
    ***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
    ===================================================

    Probably too broad an OP. I thought you wanted this to focus on genetics, but most of what you said is about the order of the fossils. Hope you will focus this a bit better, but meanwhile just a few notes in response:

    Over a hundred years ago, people did these digs and found a pattern emerging. The further down you dug, the simpler the organism was (in the form of fossils). This didn't just happen most of the time. It was always the case, if the ground was undisturbed.

    Not necessarily simpler at all. What is your definition of simpler? Does the size of the genome figure in this? This site says size and complexity of the genome are not necessarily correlated but that The largest known genome belongs to a microscopic amoeba, Amoeba Dubia, which is closely followed in size by the lungfish and the Easter lily. Most sites say the lungfish has the largest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish. In any case the amoeba is pretty far down the evolutionary chain so how did it get such a large genome back those bazillion years ago? There has to be SOME correlation with numbers of genes if the ToE is right.

    They figured deeper meant older.

    Um, certainly the lower layers would have been laid down before the upper, but if this happened to have occurred in, say, a worldwide flood, the difference in "age" would be at most days or months, and then we're only talking about the sediments. The fossil contents of the layers, however, well, that's another matter. In order to "figure that deeper meant older" in that sense, they'd have to be ASSUMING that the fossils in the lower levels were creatures that had lived their entire lives and died well before those in the upper levels, but that assumption is evo theory itself, so that to state it as you are doing is merely to beg the question. There is nothing on the face of it to show that the layers were built up over great ages of time, let alone that whole aeons passed in which the creatures encased in them lived and died. And here I'd point out what I've pointed out so many times before -- the idea that things that just lived their lives and up and died and got fossilized would do so in such predictable groupings in such predictable sediments, one at a time over millions of years and yet so relatively neatly arranged and preserved, doesn't fit reality as we know it.

    Later on they found a way to date stuff, which confirmed that deeper indeed meant older, and these things were, it turned out, very old indeed.

    Really, what turned out is that the dating methods appeared to confirm their wild and untenable suppositions, but many questions can be raised about these methods.

    They found some strange fossils which looked like a cross between one kind of animal and another. They found a lot of these.

    A lot? If so, how different are they from living things now? That is, there are some pretty odd creatures in existence now.

    As time passed, they built up a "family tree" of life based on physical characteristics.

    Linnaeus had already done that in the 18th century. The evos merely made correlations with his chart.
    http://www.origins.tv/darwin/zoo/linnaeus.htm

    ===================================================
    ***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
    ===================================================

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 05:55 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 4:48 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 6:04 PM Faith has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 295 (270890)
    12-19-2005 6:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
    12-19-2005 5:45 PM


    Probably too broad an OP. I thought you wanted this to focus on genetics, but most of what you said is about the order of the fossils.

    I thought we were going to talk about proofs of evolution. If you want to re-do it, go ahead.

    Not necessarily simpler at all.

    Simpler means it has less parts. A bacteria has less parts than a raccoon. Makes sense that if evolution is true, it would start out simple and then get more complicated.

    Um, certainly the lower layers would have been laid down before the upper, but if this happened to have occurred in, say, a worldwide flood, the difference in "age" would be at most days or months, and then we're only talking about the sediments

    There's no evidence for a flood. That's just Bible talk.

    Linnaeus had already done that in the 18th century. The evos merely made correlations with his chart

    What I mean is that there's a predictive element here. They dug up these proto-humans and said that their ancestors were apes. Then later they did the DNA analysis and come to find out we are in fact closely related to apes. That's very convincing.

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 05:36 PM


    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 5:45 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 7:30 PM robinrohan has taken no action
     Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 8:52 PM robinrohan has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 5 of 295 (270928)
    12-19-2005 7:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 6:04 PM


    Please pick one of these topics at least for starters and develop it a bit so I'll have something to sink my teeth into.

    {AbE: Never mind, see next post}

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 09:02 PM


    FEU. « DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob » non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
    -- Blaise Pascal, 1654

    Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
    -- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross

    "...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
    ---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 6:04 PM robinrohan has taken no action

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 6 of 295 (270944)
    12-19-2005 8:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 6:04 PM


    Okay, I will answer what you have written for the sake of collegiality between execrables.

    Simpler means it has less parts. A bacteria has less parts than a raccoon. Makes sense that if evolution is true, it would start out simple and then get more complicated.

    Fewer parts in ALL cases? How about the plants? And what ABOUT the larger genome for more primitive creatures? Doesn't that suggest something a bit at odds with the ToE?

    There's no evidence for a flood. That's just Bible talk.

    I hope you've followed all the threads on this subject. There's a ton of evidence for the Flood, all co-opted to the ToE.

    What I mean is that there's a predictive element here. They dug up these proto-humans and said that their ancestors were apes.

    They were either humans or apes, they were not "proto" either.

    Then later they did the DNA analysis and come to find out we are in fact closely related to apes. That's very convincing.

    Not to me, and it's not all that close, no closer than the observed physical similarities as I said, and if you're going to say this you'll have to give the reasoning or evidence that demonstrates it.

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 09:01 PM


    FEU. « DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob » non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
    -- Blaise Pascal, 1654

    Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
    -- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross

    "...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
    ---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 6:04 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 10:51 PM Faith has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 7 of 295 (270955)
    12-19-2005 10:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
    12-19-2005 8:52 PM


    And what ABOUT the larger genome for more primitive creatures? Doesn't that suggest something a bit at odds with the ToE?

    I'm not real sure about this. Here's where we might need an "expert." Anybody want to comment on complexity versus simplicity?

    There's a ton of evidence for the Flood, all co-opted to the ToE.

    I know of no such evidence rather than old tales.

    They were either humans or apes, they were not "proto" either.

    Well, they look pretty in between to me. They walk upright but their brains are smaller.

    Not to me, and it's not all that close, no closer than the observed physical similarities as I said

    If you are 97% genotype-similar, then your phenotype is going to be similar. The genes determine what you look like. But my point is they were saying this long before they could do DNA analysis.

    Then there's biogeography. Evolution provides an explanation for why isolated areas have weird creatures, like Kangaroos.

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 09:52 PM

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 09:58 PM


    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

    "It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 8:52 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 11:11 PM robinrohan has replied
     Message 9 by AdminNWR, posted 12-19-2005 11:15 PM robinrohan has taken no action
     Message 14 by pink sasquatch, posted 12-20-2005 12:58 AM robinrohan has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 8 of 295 (270962)
    12-19-2005 11:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 10:51 PM


    ===================================================
    ***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
    ===================================================

    There's a ton of evidence for the Flood, all co-opted to the ToE.

    quote:
    I know of no such evidence rather than old tales.

    So much for that topic, huh? You just haven't been paying attention. Most of the evidence used for Old Earth theory proves the Flood and has been covered here at EvC by many. NotSoBlindFaith has been doing a creditable job of it on the Noah's Ark thread.

    They were either humans or apes, they were not "proto" either.

    quote:
    Well, they look pretty in between to me. They walk upright but their brains are smaller.

    Terrific Evidence that, what they look like to you.

    Not to me, and it's not all that close, no closer than the observed physical similarities as I said

    quote:
    If you are 97% genotype-similar, then your phenotype is going to be similar.

    My point exactly. So it's merely redundant to point out that there is genetic similarity.

    The genes determine what you look like. But my point is they were saying this long before they could do DNA analysis.

    How is their genetic evidence of any more value than their earlier guesses since they merely reflect what we already know about the obvious similarity in either case?

    {AbE: Also, the physical package is not the whole nature and human beings have the Image of God in us which animals don't, maimed though it is, and while I believe the spiritual nature strongly affects the physical, there are no genes for the spiritual that we can take a look at. Anyway, God's giving us a genetic complement and a physical frame that has features in common with animal bodies, again just shows economy of design, the interchangeability of parts as it were, for adapting creatures to this physical universe. Descent is just a fanciful idea.}

    Then there's biogeography. Evolution provides an explanation for why isolated areas have weird creatures, like Kangaroos.

    All it proves is the mechanisms of selection, geographic isolation and the like, not evolution. Creationists assume a great wealth of genetic possibilities within each Kind, that simply gets selected by the various factors that segregate populations, {AbE: meaning selections are made from these possibilities} and produces new phenotypes, new variations on the Kind, sometimes under selection pressure, sometimes just because that's how the cards were dealt. Yaro posted a picture of a mole with an organ that looks like a pink flower on its nose on the Noah's Ark thread tonight, thinking this extravagant variation on moleness must challenge creationists somehow. This idea keeps coming up here but it makes no sense, and by now ought to have been put to rest many times over, as many of us have made this argument quite well. Again, Creationism ASSUMES great variability within Kinds, and NotSoBlindFaith did a great job of answering him about that particular case too.

    ===================================================
    ***Not So Great Debate thread : RobinRohan & Faith only, plus invitees***
    ===================================================

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:28 PM

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:30 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 11:29 PM Faith has replied

    AdminNWR
    Inactive Member


    Message 9 of 295 (270963)
    12-19-2005 11:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 10:51 PM


    comment on complexity
    Here's where we might need an "expert."

    Complexity is complex. Maybe it is best if the two of you avoid experts on the question of complexity, as it will only confuse things.

    Press on regardless.


    To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has taken no action

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 295 (270965)
    12-19-2005 11:29 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
    12-19-2005 11:11 PM


    Creationists assume a great wealth of genetic possibilities within each Kind, that simply gets selected by the various factors that segregate populations, and produces new phenotypes, new variations on the Kind

    I know you believe in "kinds," and in a sense that is natural. We don't see our dogs and cats giving birth to other creatures. That's how we got the notion of kinds.

    But if you look at this issue between micro- and macro-, I think we can reasonably say that this is a non-issue. All evolution is "microevolution" since the changes are so minute between each generation. But let's think about this for a minute. A momma gives birth to a little baby and it doesn't look exactly like the mother or the father. That's microevolution. Now if you keep this up for a real long time, and there are pressures on the outside that favor this or that change, you are going to have changes. And there is no way that this could stop just because you are a certain "kind."

    What does this mean, "kind"? It doesn't mean anything.

    My point exactly. So it's merely redundant to point out that there is genetic similarity

    There's a very good reason why they are so genetically similar. They had a common ancestor. Now if you go down the line and look at other creatures, such as me and my cat, you will find some genetic similarities, but not as many. What does that tell you? It tells you that we diverged a much longer time ago.

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 10:34 PM


    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

    "It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 11:11 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 11:44 PM robinrohan has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 11 of 295 (270967)
    12-19-2005 11:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 11:29 PM


    Creationists assume a great wealth of genetic possibilities within each Kind, that simply gets selected by the various factors that segregate populations, and produces new phenotypes, new variations on the Kind

    quote:
    I know you believe in "kinds," and in a sense that is natural. We don't see our dogs and cats giving birth to other creatures. That's how we got the notion of kinds.

    You may not assume that is how I or any other creationist got the notion of Kinds. That's to psychoanalyze our motives and it is not a valid argument. I believe in Kinds from the Bible, and my understanding of what a Kind has to be is nothing like what I would have come up on my own. What evolutionists call "species" are NOT the Kind.

    But if you look at this issue between micro- and macro-, I think we can reasonably say that this is a non-issue. All evolution is "microevolution" since the changes are so minute between each generation. But let's think about this for a minute. A momma gives birth to a little baby and it doesn't look exactly like the mother or the father. That's microevolution. Now if you keep this for a real long time, and there are pressures on the outside that favor this or that change, you are going to have changes.

    But again, this is far from news to a creationist, it is exactly what leads me in fact to my explanation of the natural limits to variation that I've been arguing for here. We all agree that these processes of change occur, nothing could be more commonplace. There is no proof either way yet, all we have is the evo assumption that the processes of change are open-ended versus the creo assumption that they are naturally limited by the given genetic capacity of the Kind.

    And there is no way that this could stop just because you are a certain "kind."

    You do not know that there is no way that this could stop and I've been arguing in fact for a way that it could indeed stop and I believe it does, because of the inexorable tendency of all the processes that divide populations and reduce genetic potentials at the same time they create new variations and even new species. My execrable science is of course a handicap when it comes to grasping enough of the genetics to make the case better, but I have NO doubt this is the right direction.

    What does this mean, "kind"? It doesn't mean anything.

    It will some day be genetically defined, if Jesus doesn't return sooner, and it will certainly have to do with the boundaries of such categories as Catness and Dogness and Simianness and arachnidness and so on.

    My point exactly. So it's merely redundant to point out that there is genetic similarity

    quote:
    There's a very good reason why they are so genetically similar. They had a common ancestor. Now if you go down the line and look at other creatures, such as me and my cat, you will find some genetic similarities, but not as many. What does that tell you? It tells you that we diverged a much longer time ago.

    What can I do but repeat myself? We have two conflicting theories here and if nothing else it would be a very good thing if evos, or at least you, representing the evos, would recognize this fact: that your model is genetic descent and creationists' model is design -- There is absolutely nothing on the face of it that requires descent as the explanation of these similarities you are talking about. Design economy works just fine.

    This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 11:49 PM


    FEU. « DIEU d'Abraham, DIEU d'Isaac, DIEU de Jacob » non des philosophes et des savants. Certitude. Certitude...
    -- Blaise Pascal, 1654

    Gustato spiritu, desipit omnis caro.
    -- Unknown, quoted by John of the Cross

    "...faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology."
    ---Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 1926, p.19


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 11:29 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2005 12:01 AM Faith has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 12 of 295 (270972)
    12-20-2005 12:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
    12-19-2005 11:44 PM


    You may not assume that is how I or any other creationist got the notion of Kinds. That's to psychoanalyze our motives and it is not a valid argument. I believe in Kinds from the Bible, and my understanding of what a Kind has to be is nothing like what I would have come up on my own. What evolutionists call "species" are NOT the Kind.

    Well, pardon me. I was just going by a common sense idea that we all have a notion of "kinds," Bible readers or not. A dog's a dog, a cat's a cat. I figured that's where that came from. I had no idea it came from the Bible.

    But again, this is far from news to a creationist, it is exactly what leads me in fact to my explanation of the natural limits to variation that I've been arguing for here

    You haven't mentioned why there would be any limits. Now, I agree there are certain physical limitations. For example, a bird that was too heavy wouldn't be able to fly. But other than things like that, I don't see any limits.

    What can I do but repeat myself? We have two conflicting theories here and if nothing else it would be a very good thing if evos, or at least you, representing the evos, would recognize this fact: that your model is genetic descent and creationists' model is design -- There is absolutely nothing on the face of it that requires descent as the explanation of these similarities you are talking about. Design economy works just fine.

    I don't think so, Faith. The naturalistic explanation is much more reasonable. We know there is Nature. We don't know there is God.

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 11:07 PM

    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 11:08 PM


    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

    "It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    Our Nada, who art in Nada, Nada be thy name. Hail, Nothing, full of Nothing, Nothing is with thee.--Hemingway


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 11:44 PM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Faith, posted 12-20-2005 12:37 AM robinrohan has replied

    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 721 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 13 of 295 (270977)
    12-20-2005 12:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by robinrohan
    12-20-2005 12:01 AM


    Well, pardon me. I was just going by a common sense idea that we all have a notion of "kinds," Bible readers or not. A dog's a dog, a cat's a cat. I figured that's where that came from. I had no idea it came from the Bible.

    No problem. My mistake. I guess thought by now anybody who hangs out at EvC would know that creationists get the Kinds from the Bible.

    But again, this is far from news to a creationist, it is exactly what leads me in fact to my explanation of the natural limits to variation that I've been arguing for here

    quote:
    You haven't mentioned why there would be any limits. Now, I agree there are certain physical limitations. For example, a bird that was too heavy wouldn't be able to fly. But other than things like that, I don't see any limits.

    Well the limits I've been talking about have to do with limits to genetic variation by population reducing events that separate different portions of a gene pool from one another.

    There is absolutely nothing on the face of it that requires descent as the explanation of these similarities you are talking about. Design economy works just fine.

    quote:

    I don't think so, Faith. The naturalistic explanation is much more reasonable. We know there is Nature. We don't know there is God.

    I do. But in any case design economy works just fine, as do all the creationist explanations. Nothing whatever makes the evo explanation any more compelling.


    Psa 14:1 of David. The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God.

    Psa 107:8-14: Oh that [men] would praise the LORD [for] his goodness, and [for] his wonderful works to the children of men! For he satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness. Such as sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, [being] bound in affliction and iron; Because they rebelled against the words of God, and contemned the counsel of the most High: Therefore he brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and [there was] none to help. Then they cried unto the LORD in their trouble, [and] he saved them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, and brake their bands in sunder.

    Hbr 2:14-16 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

    1Cr 15:55-57 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory? The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law. But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2005 12:01 AM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2005 1:01 AM Faith has replied

    pink sasquatch
    Member (Idle past 5300 days)
    Posts: 1567
    Joined: 06-10-2004


    Message 14 of 295 (270984)
    12-20-2005 12:58 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
    12-19-2005 10:51 PM


    my 'expert' opinion
    Hi Faith and robinrohan-

    Hopefully you don't mind me popping in to make this comment; I won't interfere otherwise - it seemed the offer was made:

    Anybody want to comment on complexity versus simplicity?

    "Complexity" is a difficult thing to define/quantify, but evolution doesn't proceed from simple to complex, so it may be a non-issue given the context. Instead, evolution proceeds from "less fit" to "more fit" for a given species and environment.

    A well-studied example is the stickleback fishes - it appears that they have evolved to lose certain characteristics in certain environments - specifically armor plating and pelvic fins have been examined recently in great detail. The loss of these characteristics might appear to make the organisms more "simple", but the loss increases the organisms' "fitness", and thus its ability to survive, reproduce, and pass on its genes - in other words, pass "natural selection". I can provide references if you like, but they will be quite technical.

    Hopefully that was helpful and I didn't overstep any bounds - let me know if I did and I can delete some or all of the post. If it was helpful I'll try to answer other questions when I can.

    Good luck.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 10:51 PM robinrohan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 12-20-2005 1:11 AM pink sasquatch has replied

    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 15 of 295 (270986)
    12-20-2005 1:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
    12-20-2005 12:37 AM


    Well the limits I've been talking about have to do with limits to genetic variation by population reducing events that separate different portions of a gene pool from one another.

    "population reducing events"? What on earth are you talking about?

    I do. But in any case design economy works just fine, as do all the creationist explanations. Nothing whatever makes the evo explanation any more compelling.

    No, it's not "in any case." In order to have a design, you need a designer. So you do know, but the rest of us don't. There's no evidence for God, Faith. Nothing objective. It's just your feelings.

    Not that I don't respect your feelings, you understand. But they are only feelings.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    We are here as on a darkling plain
    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
    Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold

    "It's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    Our Nada, who art in Nada, Nada be thy name. Hail, Nothing, full of Nothing, Nothing is with thee.--Hemingway


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Faith, posted 12-20-2005 12:37 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by Faith, posted 12-20-2005 1:23 AM robinrohan has replied
     Message 20 by Faith, posted 12-20-2005 2:24 AM robinrohan has replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.1
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022